Thou Shalt Not Copy: Presents a summary of the instances of plagiarism committed by the authors of the 2007 paper. It's a good summary ["the Narayanan paper" in the excerpts below is the "original", published in 1996]:

The first three sentences of the introduction to the [2007] paper have been lifted verbatim from the [1996] Narayanan paper. Another two sentences that appears later in this section are also similar. This section also has two references to the original paper, though it has been placed next to text which incidentally does not refer to the original text

...The second section of the paper which runs to nearly a page, is where most of the alleged plagiarism has taken place. Barring two sentences, the entire section has been repeated verbatim from the Narayanan paper.

This is where a large part of the theory of the paper is developed. Crucially, there is no attribution anywhere to the Narayanan paper in this section.

... Most of the text in this section is a replica of the Narayanan paper. Though there is a reference to the Narayanan paper, it is placed at the end of the section, and does not clearly indicate that the text preceding it is from the same paper.

Those of you who have access to the relevant journals can take a look at the 2007 paper, the 1996 original, and the editorial announcing the retraction of the former. The conclusion is quite inescapable, except for a minor wrinkle: even though extensive parts of the 2007 paper have been plagiarized with no citation whatsoever, other parts of that paper do indeed carry a citation to the original. But, the plagiarized part is so blatant -- you just have to look at Figure 1 in each paper -- that the editorial team's choice was already made for them!

13
Comments:

Anonymous
said...

This kind of people bring disrepute toour institutes of "national importance"and "excellence".No wonder, then MHRD and its baboo-ssimply toy with and make a mockery ofprofessors' salaries and also takeaway autonomy for all practical purposes.

Of course, reproducing verbatim from another paper is a kind of plagiarism, but it is a minor kind. The editorial board of the IET Microw. Antennas Propag. states that they consider the case in Joshi et. al's paper as plagiarism, they make it clear that one cannot accuse the authors that their intention was to copy. The related excerpt goes like this:

" While it is indeed true that Joshi et al cite [2] in their work,the impression created in the readers’ minds is that theequations derived in their work are based on their ownwork. Outright plagiarism, of course, is constituted by thecopying of material with no acknowledgment of the source,which is not the case here. Due acknowledgment has beengiven by the author, which makes one reluctant to passjudgement on the author’s intention in reproducing thematerial. But whether through poor or disingenuousexpression, they have not made clear that the theory is nottheir own. The text and figures could and should have beensimply referenced, and not reproduced. "

And they have taken a decision to withdraw the paper because:

"Whatever the intention, the fact remains that the IET haspublished sections of a paper that give the impression ofbeing original when they are not. To redress thisimpression, we have taken the decision to retract the paperin question from our online database."

I feel the decision to retract the paper is right, but saying that the authors really intended to reproduce the work is not correct given the fact that the paper has made its own contributions. I feel that it is associated with "bad writing" than plagiarism. We [Indians] must develop the skill to express the ideas and even introductions to the already existing theory in our own words.

why make NITK director a scapegoat.when NITK is doing well, how come suddenly this story has appeared....?????What is the intention of TNIE to sensationalize the story.is it a publicity stunt or some other motive...????

Clear case of character assassination by TNIE through a report by instigation.Why publish on a front page of a national newspaper....??? unverified authentic report unless there is a hidden agenda of TNIE.

This case came up because of a lobby, they wanted to tarnish Prof. Sanchaiti since he kept away the local influential group. He is a good administrator did lot of things to NITK. All these things are blown out of proportion. And express did a wrong thing by giving lot of publicity to this and we know those people behind the mask those who did not get any favors from Prof.Sanchaiti ha ha stupids

Its a matter of time that Sandeep Sancheti will be proved to be a fraud. Theief is always a thief and followers of thief also are thieves. If today NITK has lost its Glory its because of the wrong doings of Sandeep Sancheti. He is a total fraud and his followers who defend him here are also supporting to get personal gains. Haha. These stupid followers do not have self respect and no standing of their own. So they have to come up only by buttering Sandeep sancheti. coz they dont have merit.

It's not an issue of for/against Dr Sancheti(deserves no more to be called professor)but to highlight the act in order to derive a sense of honesty and so we should be thankful to Indian Express to expose a dirty act.

Anonymous on Oct 08,2009 at 12.50 AM wrote that Prof Sacheti has kept away the local influential group. It is clear from this comment that Prof Sancheti has been discriminating the locals and has his coterie of non locals. IT Is the locals who were denied their due during the last Faculty selection/promotions. It is the locals who exposed the irregularities committed by Prof Sancheti during the last selections. Surely Prof Sancheti will have to pay for his misdeeds. The author of the comment seems to be a member of this coterie; in fact Mir Sadique of NITK. It is this group that is responsible for poisoning the mind of Prof Sancheti constantly for their personal gains. The members of this coterie will take up some posts by hook or crook, where they can extort money for boozing every day with Prof Sancheti. If Prof Sancheti had an iota of shame, then he should have gone on leave till he is cleared of these allegations. Let all know that nobody can get away by antagonising the locals and try to boss over them.

Anonymous on Oct 08,2009 at 12.50 AM wrote that Prof Sacheti has kept away the local influential group. It is clear from this comment that Prof Sancheti has been discriminating the locals and has his coterie of non locals. IT Is the locals who were denied their due during the last Faculty selection/promotions. It is the locals who exposed the irregularities committed by Prof Sancheti during the last selections. Surely Prof Sancheti will have to pay for his misdeeds. The author of the comment seems to be a member of this coterie; in fact Mir Sadique of NITK. It is this group that is responsible for poisoning the mind of Prof Sancheti constantly for their personal gains. The members of this coterie will take up some posts by hook or crook, where they can extort money for boozing every day with Prof Sancheti. If Prof Sancheti had an iota of shame, then he should have gone on leave till he is cleared of these allegations. Let all know that nobody can get away by antagonising the locals and try to boss over them.

A famous historian has said that new books rest on the shoulders of older books.This is very true of science and technology as well. Any new field of knowledge will naturally be based on previously known ones or similar theories.I urge all to exercise maturity and restraint beofre tarnishing the image of anyone. No proof is required for an allegation or a negative statement but takes immense effort to build a good reputation.Arun Kumar